While I agree that it's important to share this kind of information, your alarmist tone only adds to the polarization of this subject.
To people familiar with scientific studies, these look like fairly normal lab protocols. The leap you make from terminology like 'may cause' or 'could harm' to 'everyone is a super-spreader of something' is not a logical conclusion, it's just as intentionally misleading (probably more so) as you're claiming this document is.
Some of the claims you're pointing out, like babies being born to mothers who came into incidental contact with a vaccinated female, CAN'T BE KNOWN. The vaccine hasn't been in testing long enough for that to even happen, let alone to have good data.
You're trying to create panic over typical precautions.
Here's some more anectodal evidence. I know dozens of people who have been vaccinated, they have been mingling together with my cousin who just had a baby and is breastfeeding. She was vaccinated shortly after giving birth. Nobody has had a problem worse than headache, and among them they've had every vaccine available in this area.
I don't know if you're deliberately trying to scare people, or if you just don't understand the context of what you're reading, but either way, you should try for a calmer tone, unless you WANT to sound like the loudmouths on TV that keep lying to everyone.
Incorrect.
There’s enough fearporn out there already in MSM, and I assume the majority of my audience are smarter than to buy it in any form - even the counterperspective.
The tone of the first article speaking to the documentation may have had that angle - though I entrust my audience to discern for themselves.
Not a matter of creating “panic” at all, but passing along critically important counter perspectives to the “its entirely safe” bullshit propagated in mainstream narrative.
I wish your cousin and her baby well, as there have been others in the same positions whose stories have not ended happily. (The social accounting of which has nothing to do with “creating panic,” but an act of service in bringing that to light which mainstream keeps sweeping under the rug to the endangerment of those unaware of the actual risks.)
I read a few of your posts before I replied (or I might have take a less, ah, savory tone myself) and I don't mean to imply that I think you're just spamming BS. I followed, I upvoted at least one... you've got a fan here. However:
there have been many reporting crazy health issues *after simply being around the freshly "vaccinated." (If you can even call it that... though if you were to be real, it's just straight-up genetic modification.)Many is a word that takes advantage of the ignorant. A VERY VERY small percentage of hundreds of millions of people can still be 'many'. I'm not saying we should ignore the suffering of 1000's of people, and I do think pharmaceutical companies should have some liability to people who suffer adverse effects from their products (especially while they're price gouging on so many products). It's important, though, to keep this in context. Even if HUNDREDS of thousands were seeing adverse effects (and it is NOT that many, unless there are high localized concentrations for some reason), that is less than a hundredth of a percent of people recieving the vaccine. Nothing in your post made this clear.
Also, none of these vaccines are 'straight up' genetic modification. They are a very targeted genetic modification, designed to produce an immune response without ever introducing any element of the virus into our system. I understand the skepticism about any novel approach, but to loudly decry that NOBODY should get this vaccine is irresponsible. People should have a choice, and the research SHOULD be done. If we actually make this work, it would be as much of a game changer as vaccines themselves, or penicillin. This tech has the potential to produce safe vaccines against things like influenza, coronavirus, rhinovirus, zikavirus, and other fast-mutating, genetically diverse diseases, that work against all variants, forever. Imagine a flu vaccine that worked against every flu, one shot and you're covered forever, like polio. Or a cold vaccine that didn't just protect you from Covid-19, but EVERY coronavirus cold on the planet. Ignoring the research because it is risky, well, it's just not an option. Human nature won't allow it.
I like different opinions, and I like people pointing out the devils in the fine print. I also like all that discussion to be contextual in some form, otherwise we're just adding to the confusion, whether or not that was our intention.
dude, the number of reported "injuries" in Europe is somewhere near half a million now. US crossed six digits a while ago. post-vax deaths up over 8x in US from normal. there are alot of different figures factoring into the equation...
even if there's less than 1% of those immediate risks - and still, nobody knows the long-term risks, though if they're anything like how the animal tests went with previous mRNA trials, it's not promising - it's still adding up to be significantly higher than the 0.0007% of death from CV someone my/your age actually has (which is probably even lower if we're in good health, taking proper care of our immune systems, supplementing with vitamin D, etc.)
Agreed. I never intended to imply that no one should get it. Though to be pushing it so aggressively on everyone - especially those of a younger age for whom it'd probably be less risky to simply get CV and develop natural immunity - is pretty fucking reckless, especially in consideration of the types of warning highly credible experts like Dr. Geert Van Den Bossche have been issuing on the potentially disastrous consequences of using the potentially useful tool in such an incorrect campaign as a one-size-fits-all strategy.
And sadly, it seems many have been making the choice driven by peer & cultural pressure, and the research that's been cast into public spotlight coming through the filters of those with invested interested whilst much addressing the risks has been aggressively censored.
I do appreciate the counterperspectives you've brought to the dialogue. T'is a valuable balance, as I confess, I've had biases which have tended to block out some of the good points you make.
All great points on the math of the risks involved. Regarding the reported 'injuries', from what I've seen here in the US (and I confess, I haven't looked closely) these numbers are beefed up by a lot of complaints of normal vaccine side effects, much like the numbers of COVID deaths were beefed up by adding in deaths that were very loosely connected to COVID infection.
Thank you for appreciating the counterspective. Too often in this world, outside ideas just make people defensive, and criticism is seen as a personal attack.
I would like to spend some more time praising the elegance and grace of that last comment, but it's late, and you seem pretty smart, so you probably already know how good it was 😁
Keep up the good work, I look forward to reading it!